You can assert all the property rights you want. You can get a legal system on your side. You may even be in the moral right--but it takes more than "because I said so", "because that's how it's always been", or "because that's what we're used to" to justify it.
The person with whom I was discussing did not dispute the validity of IP itself. He simply had an inconsistent view, in that he effectively claimed to be concerned about the property rights of the artist, but failed to recognize artist's right to sell it, or the purchaser's right to price it however they please. Because reducing the right to transfer property reduces the rights to property itself, it is inconsistent with arguing for the artist property rights. I called him on this. End of story.
It is not necessary for me to attempt to "prove" undisputed facts. What you are asking of me would be equivalent to my demanding that you "prove" the morality of ownership, when, in fact, you are only debating someone else about how you should be allowed to transfer it.
Slavery is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
Intellectual property is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
Even PHYSICAL property is an asserted property right interfering with the free actions of a human being other than the alleged 'owner'.
The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. Certainly, most people find slavery morally repugnant; it certainly had the largest impact on the freedom of the people involved.
You, at once, manage to over- and under-simply matters. Just as the notion of property interferes with the right of any man to do as he pleases, whenever he pleases, so do all human laws. However, it is highly myopic to think the only area of differentiation is the degree in which they interfere with the exercise of free will. The most important, though far from the only, distinction is in fact their morality--not the degree to which it retrains free will.
To quote MLK Jr:
"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
Proceeding by this definition, slavery is clearly unjust, by pitting the majority against the minority it undebatably detracts from society as a whole. Contrast this with the utilitarian ends attained by the legal recognition of property. Though far from perfectly equitable, it furthers the greater good. One need look no further than the now defunct USSR (amongst others) to see what the results of the alternative is. Because the legal institution of property (in a general sense, not every instance of property) furthers the greater good, it 'uplifts the human personality', and thus is moral.
Artist produces a song. Artist sells property rights to the song to record company. Everyone else living in a WIPO-treatybound country is bound by the asserted property right not to share that song with their friends. We do not have a choice in the matter either.
If you accept that the artist would not have produced that work at all were it not for IP, it is hard to assert that IP is hurting you in this instance. Simply put, you would never have an exact digital copy (read: mp3) like that, if the artist had not created it; the odds of someone recreating an exact copy on their own (read: without the artist writing/singing etc) are astronomically low, which is, in fact, the topic here.
The phrase is 'human property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to exploit the owned human for your benefit. If you don't recognize the right of the slaveowner to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the slaveowners' rights.
This is a typical ploy of extremists (though some, apparently, legitimately lack the ability to make such basic distinctions), put words in the person's mouth or make absurd comparisons. It is more of a scare tactic than anything else. Not only that, but you are comparing apples to oranges. As I've already mentioned, intellectual property, unlike slavery, is moral, and it is law (not to mention very positive effects on the aggregate), thus it should be obeyed.
That's like saying "Slaves need some some way to eat. Even if their master only gives them a piece of bread a day, it's better than nothing. By freeing slaves, you're doing nothing to help them eat. While the system may be 'unfair', that does not make the concept of owning slaves null and void. It exists for a reason, so just accept it."
No, it is nothing like slavery. Slaves do not have a choice in the matter. All artists do have a choice, even if they sign stupid contracts, sell the rights, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that artists still choose to sign with the top labels of their own freewill, despite the presence of "indy" this and "indy" that. They still find it more advantageous to get "raped" (as you would put it) by industry, then go it alone. Put simly, this means that the labels are offering the artist something of greater value (e.g., promotion, marketing, distribution, mixing, etc.), even if you personally (as a consumer) don't appreciate or benefit from it.
The word is 'intellectual property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to sell it. If you don't recognize the right of the artist to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the artists' rights.
Do you seriously mean to tell me you consider everything you do based on time vs. value recieved?
You must be joking. How can you post to/. then? Typing that message must have cost you at least 3 bucks!:-)
Well, I certainly won't pull out a calculator and compute it (normally atleast).;) But everyone takes such things under considerations, whether or not they realize it. You might not necessarily think, "gee my time is worth X, this returns Y". Most people (although clearly some do) are not going to repeatedly attempt to find songs when they could just go out and buy it at effectively lower cost.
There's ALWAYS a way around, and as long as people want to do something, they will.
Yes, I generally agree with that. Though I don't know about always. As I mentioned before, these services all depend on a certain amount of centralization, and can always be shutdown directly. Furthermore, as a system administrator, I needn't stop all the geeks in the world from getting mp3s (although if the community is that sparse, it rapidly losses its music selection), all I would need to do is adapt the network often enough such that the majority of would-be napster clone users have to relearn and reconfigure frequently.
You cannot stop the masses.
I disagree. The masses can be, and will be effectively stopped. The few who break through with ease can be written off.
In any case, time will tell. If and when this puts a real hurt to the music industry, they'll start coming after these servers with a vengence, and Joe Schmoe won't have his trivial mp3 downloads.
You're missing my point. Yes, you can break the law, I really don't care to discuss the ethics here at this point. What I will say, however, is that the industry can effectively stiffle the ability of the average Joe (and even more skilled users, to a lesser degree) to get whatever song they want, quickly, cheaply, and without wasting a great deal of time. By changing a few variables (e.g., time it takes to find a given song, download speed, social stigma, etc.) which the industry has some influence over they can stop the vast majority of users most of the time. Legally pursing all of these highly effective indexing services (e.g., napster) themselves is one way. Another is to prevent broadband ISPs (including college campuses) from unwittingly hosting such services.
While it does depend somewhat on the person, everyone has their time/value treshhold. For example, if I valued my time at no less than 30 dollars an hour, I would most likely not participate in mp3 trading if it only returns 1 CD (which I would otherwise purchase) for every hour I invest in it. Thus shutting down napster and clones would stop me from downloading with any regularity (as opposed to opportunistic/scavenger mode). While it may be considerably lower for others, anyone who values their time at a mere dollar an hour (just about what it must be for the average IRC-mp3 trader) truely isn't likely to purchase a great number of CDs anyways, nor is the industry apt to give these types of traders much in the way of chase.
Although Napster is the largest distribution method, it certainly isn't the only one. It would be impossible for any artist to control their commercialized music on Usenet, IRC, FTP, HTTP, and others. Hell, someone had to buy their CD if the music is being distributed in the first place (I'm sure that if an artist only sold a single CD their label wouldn't be terribly impressed mind you).
The fact of the matter is that Napster is the first method of trading mp3s in a way that is sufficiently convenient to allow for average (and even highly capable individuals such as myself) computer users to download mp3s. Being a long time mp3 user and one of the original founders of #mp3 (undernet, amongst others), I can tell you that IRC, FTP, HTTP, and other decentralized systems are highly flawed, too much so for the vast majority of mp3 users today. The problem with these services is that they're either merely providing indexing, or they're archiving. Archiving clearly exposes them to liability, and thus will never withstand an all out legal attack. Indexing (although likely not immune from litigation) is plagued with problems of broken links, full ftp servers, slow systems, etc.
In other words, given the nature of the internet (human nature, of course, being contained within), there IS a need for psuedo-centralization such as napster (indexing is definetly centralized, and mp3s are effectively centralized and assured in that the listing, downloading, uploading, etc is controlled by the software). Furthermore, any service/software which is sufficiently effective is apt to be sufficiently centralized to be held accountable and to be sued. I, also, highly doubt that services like napster will stand up in the legal system. Thus, I would not say it is "impossible" for artists/labels to effectively control their music.
"the question still remains of why I would buy water when I can get it free from my tap. Less than 10% of the price of a CD goes to the artists anyhow, and I'm just not willing to support the industry anymore (though I really do like quality music and would like the artists to continue making good music, unlike the garbage at mp3.com)."
Artists need some way to profit from their work. Even if only a small fraction goes to the artist, it's better than none. By freeloading you're doing nothing to encourage the production or distribution of "quality" music. While the system may be "unfair", and while you're free to disagree with it, it does not make intellectual property null and void. It exists for a reason, you, as a consumer, have a simple choice: Accept conditions and buy it, or not.
That being said, I'm (obviously) not completely innocent of downloading non-free mp3s myself. However, I've never attempted to justify outright freeloading in the name of "fairness" (nor anything else for that matter). Furthermore, I tend to restrict my mp3s downloads (or ripping) to CDs that I either already own (so I can listen to them exclusively at home on my computer plugged into my hi-fi--I find this the best way to browse and listen while doing computer work), or songs that I likely would never buy in a store (allows me to sample and discover songs, if I find something I really like, I will generally purchase it). In other words, on songs that I do not yet "own", mp3 enables me to listen to a diverse swath of music, which i'd _never_ buy if I had to purchase the CD on which each song belogs. Once i discover something I really like, I will buy it, for the sake of convenience if nothing else (so I can listen to it elsewhere besides my computer), and to get all the other songs (which even napster frequently lacks--one other reason to keep up enforcement).
None the less, intellectual property is intellectual property--I do not have a right to do so. They are perfectly entitled to make reasonable efforts to enforce their rights, especially since they can't trust the general public to go out and buy their CDs in a way that does not discourage future production.
I don't know about you guys, but i'm not asking for free lunch. NetPliance's price is/was at the bottom of my list in terms of reason's to buy it. I would be very happy if Netpliance could be persuaded to sell the I-Opener to the Linux community, modified or unmodified, at cost or at reasonable profit. The fact of the matter is that NetPliance could accomodate a large swath of the Linux community without significant cost to themselves.
Furthermore, I submit that making reasonable accomodation to the Linux community would benefit NetPliance:
1. They would gain the good will of the community, the benefits should be not underestimated. Many of us have non-techie friends, family, coworkers, employers, and the like that listen to us to varying degrees. Although we may not be able to convince a newbie they should drop Windows95 for Linux (not that I would ever make such a recommendation), we can exert tremendous influences on people who're considering adopting such a device/service at that crucial point.
2. When it comes to technology, we are early adopters. NetPliance can leverage their mindshare with the so-called "geek" community (although I would not call myself a geek), to introduce new products and software. Conversely, their
competitors could use the small but highly receptive community to develop the economies of scale, the mindshare, and the credibility necessary to compete against NetPliance's bread and butter.
3. The increased volume due to "geek" sales (or even profit)is far more likely, even at a mere 5% of sales, to reduce their overall costs than increase them.
4. It would be advantageous for their cash flows, if they priced it in such a way that "geeks" pay cost + whatever profits they average in, say, a year's worth of service, up front (even if this is only a spike in the first month or two of sales). Also, remember that we Linux users could be sold these units
AS IS, without the need for any technical support. Either for their software, or service.
5. While Linux ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread, there is an off chance that Linux will continue to grow and eat into Wintel systems. Why not hedge their bets?
There are many reasons to humor the "geek" community, these are just some of them. Yet I can think of no strong arguments against it. I would ask every "geek" who is interested in paying a reasonable price to email NetPliance, tell them you'd be willing to pay, and remind them that we are far from irrelevant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much of a market realist. The fact of the matter is that good IT can save a company a great deal of money (not to mention boost earnings). My problem, however, is less a matter of the price being paid for IT, then it is simply utter lack of available talent. The talent that can usually be had by most companies is mediocre, and the price paid is steep. I certainly take issue with anyone who would say that IT talent simply isn't an issue, that it's being fabricated by companies so they can reduce their IT costs by bringing in help from the 3rd world. Clearly when one looks at the avg. IT salary since the growth of "tech" visas, it speaks very much contrary to this fact.
Furthermore, although I believe in paying what the market dictates, I don't necessarily believe this is ultimately healthy for the economy. While many large companies can afford to hire very expensive IT, most startup companies (except for some of these dotcoms rolling in VC money, but that's more of an abberation...) are being priced out by larger companies because they can not afford these kind of cash outflows. Simply put, this has adverse effects on the economy. It seems particularly silly when the US has a very backwards immigration and visa policy, that effectively only lets in nominal levels of skilled (or even semi-skilled) labor, but hundreds of thousands of unskilled people. I can think of many companies that are desperate for good IT, yet they just can't get it, even though there are millions of highly skilled IT people outside the US who're willing to work at rates they can afford. Simply put, these costs (but more importantly the shortage) are needlessly artificially high because of protectionist and backwards immigration laws.
The bottom line: If you see the great value of good IT and realize the rarity of it in corporate America, it's hard to argue economically that it would hurt our country to allow more (but not necessarily completely open) talented workers in.
When you say there isn't a "shortage of IT professionals", do you mean people who merely get paid to do the job, or do you mean competent people? The problem is that when you say you use the term "strictly" that would imply the later.
In any case, as you may or may not know, the market for IT employees in Philly is very tight (I, too, live in philly). Witness: rising salaries, employers willing to pay virtually anything for competent help, the plethora of weak certification courses, etc. In what other career can a high school dropout take some certification course and make 60k++ within a year?
While you are certainly right that (atleast if I read this much correctly) employers have a hard time finding competent IT employees, I disagree with the cause(s) and some of your other statements. Although I don't disagree that you'll find atleast 20 idiots for every half competent IT worker, the problems extend far beyond just being able to test it. I think there is a genuine shortage of talented IT workers. Truely excellent IT people stand out head and shoulders above the rest, if for no other reason than 1 good IT person is worth atleast 20 monkeys. Regardless of whatever their formal credentials are, recommendations and the like are highly telling. I happen to know many employers and headhunters, the word generally is: If you have talent, give him whatever he wants. Consequently, employers have a very difficult time finding new (not age) talent, because they're generally quickly devoured.
The bottom line: Most employers have to spend absurd sums of money to get decent IT. Because skilled workers are impossible to find, employers are forced to turn to monkeys. And because monkeys are so damn ineffective, it takes 20 times as many to do the same job. Which causes the market for monkeys to skyrocket as well....
...which of course leads to the need for platforms such as NT. Which, ultimately, leads to the need for more monkeys. Which causes even more employee (non-IT) downtime, which only adds to the cost....Any sane skilled/intelligent person, of course, avoids such environments...Which naturally makes the majority of the up and coming generation virtually braindead when it comes to IT....
I certainly don't think the bursting of the "internet bubble" will hurt either directly (e.g., not in sales). However, the PE ratios of many of these non-Dotcoms are extremely high. For example, Cisco was almost 200 last time I checked! Granted, they have significant growth opportunies and they're well run. Nonetheless, at 200 it's very questionable. I wouldn't be too suprised, if, when the dotcoms start turning bellyup, the market also "re-examines" the valuation of non dotcoms as well. Cisco might very well recieve extra-scrutiny, because of guilt by assocation.
Disclaimer: Dont have much time now, maybe later....
This is another example of non-news, of an old blue-blooded publication pooh-poohing the high-growth economy of the Internet.
Bah humbug. I'm not going to say that there wasn't, nor isn't, significant stodginess amongst the wall street community. However, not every criticism of the so-called "new economy" is irrational or self-serving.
Net firms are DESIGNED to run out of money. Here's the way it works. VC's give ten companies ten million dollars each. They companies spend it as fast as they can, provided they get some results for it, and it's off to the races. Of course, startups pace their spending, but if they give themselves a year's cushion of cash, development will suffer and they'll fall behind. Of the ten companies, maybe one will reach maturity before it runs out of money, will go public, and will pay off the investors way better than 10-1.
Ok, first point: The VC don't care about the ultimate sucess of these companies, atleast not in the short run. So long as the VCs can get in, and quadruple their money after the IPO in only a few short months, they're happy. The VCs, of course, depend on a highly receptive and irrational market, whether or not they recognize it.
Second point: Your example would only allow for the VC firm to break even--hardly a worthwhile investment. 10 companies by 10 million dollars equals 100m, if only one company suceeds and returns 100m, that's 100m in and 100m out. In other words, they've only broken even. Which, in a time-value of money point of view (not to mention inflation), is actually a loss. Because that 100 million dollars could have been invested in almost anything else, and returned significant profits.
Third point: The math doesn't work out like this in reality. As it stands right now in publically traded firms, almost every single DotCom IPO has been a winner. To criticize this is hardly irrational. The aggregate of the market capitalizations of all these Dot-Coms is impossibly high. They either would all have to grow at an impossibly high rate, or you accept something like your previously mentioned scenario, where one in ten does well enough to make up for the losses in the failures--the growth rate and/or profitability required for that is virtually impossible.
Amazon could be making a profit today if they wanted to, but they're still spending enourmous amounts on promotion. Folks keep sayting that some sort of bubble is going to burst, but that's not quite accurate. Growth WILL slow down one of these days, though, once we reach a certain point of saturation. When that day comes, many companies will see their stock drop through the floor, and they'll be acquired for pennies by the big fish. With fewer startups nipping at their heels, the leaders like Amazon will reduce spending on promotion, and they'll start to show profits.
Amazon is overvalued. That is a problem for anyone who is invested in them. Once the market understands that they can't grow at anywhere near the rate implicitly (though not necessarily conciously) anticipated, their stock is going to fall hard. Furthermore, Amazon, like many of these DotComs, implicitly depends on the market being there for them when they need more cash. The drier the market becomes for them, the harder they're going to find it to raise capital, the more they dillute their stock, the poorer they perform (as a stock), the drier the market becomes, and so on. I predict these DotComs are going to go the way of the BioTech stocks of late eighties and early nineties, from redhot to untouchable in 0 seconds.
I would also remind you that what Amazon "could" do is irrelevant, what they do do is the only important question. If Amazon is overconfident of the market, and treats their cashflows accordingly, they may find themselves at a point of no return if the market dynamics change significantly.
At this point, Amazon is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. They can't possibly meet market expectations, and their stock has to come down no matter what management does. Amazon can either try to fulfill those growth prophesies (which they'll never meet anyways, and depending on the market to back them up when they need cash again), or they can cut their losses and try to attain profitability, at the expense of future growth. Either way, their stock is going to fall.
The bottom line: Amazon might succeed as a company, but that does not mean it is sane to invest in them at this point!
I hate to nitpick (especially on a casual discussion forum such as slashdot), but why must so many users on slashdot, such as yourself, frequently insist on using the adjective 'said' out of proper context? Granted this particular discussion has some legal orientation, but, in general, outside of legal documents and business contracts, the adjective 'said' is simply unnecessary. Worse yet, such language needlessly detracts from clarity and coherance. While I can understand typos, gramatical errors, and the like as a result of inattention and/or less than perfect education, the use of 'said' is obviously an intentional act, and I think most people should know better.
/* End Gripe */ /* Remove Aspestos Suit */
That being said, I basically agree with your statements, even though i'm far from a GPL/RMS cheerleader. If someone wants to design/build/code something, they're free to dictate its terms of use. You simply have a choice to use it or not use it. So long as that licensing/agreement/patent/copyright doesn't restrict you from indepedently developing something on your own (e.g., not conceptual patents, like the "one click" stuff), there isn't a defensible argument against it. This goes for both propietary and Open Source'ish licenses. Sure, you can bitch to the owners and try to get them to change it; baring that, create your own, make your own license, and shutup!
In other words, I'll defend GPL's right to preserve its integrity, just as I'll defend propietary products that don't want to Open Source, and I needn't agree with either specific application of it. So while "bitching" and attacking RMS's reasoning may be appropriate, forcibly breaking or weasiling around the license is not.
The better world is one where each license and school of thought is allowed to play itself out, rather than allowing either school (read: propietary or "open") to dictate to the other.
Well any sensible user is apt to have the applications installed (owned by) as root, or some other user. Thus, since you can't modify the application binaries (baring some kind of exploit), you couldn't have the application corrupt or encrypt the documents. The hax0r could, of course, write a program that just goes straight for the documents (though that would likely be quite ugly and detectable).
While I guess it is possible encrypt the documents, it doesn't make a great deal of advantages over erasing. I, a half intelligent user, could write a trivial crontab script (or for that matter just about any other backup scheme) that just backs up/home/fall/documents/ to/backup/documents/$date/ (root owned of course). In other words, whether the files are erased, corrupted, or encrypted is essentially irrelevant.
In regards to my "delta" backup scheme (though most likely overkill), it is essentially foolproof within the confines of its design (e.g., unless root is attained and the HD itself is accessed). My initial mention, simply takes snap shots of all files in the defined filesystem (or rather virtual filesystem, as opposed to having to check part of an ext2 partition every other minute) on a given interval (though I could do it continously (e.g., on every write and erase)), and, with the intent to conserve space, only the DIFFERENCE [hence the word 'delta'] between the previous snapshot and the current snapshot would be physically saved. Most users' documents in a given year(or code, or what have you) are typically relatively small, and, I believe, that with my delta scheme even all the changes to the files over the course of, say, 90 days could be stored without a great deal more physical storage required. Thus, no matter what happens at the user level, the user always has the options of returning to the state of his filesystem up to 90 days before. In other words, if I have preexisting 'snapshots' of unmolested files, and the user (virus) encrypted/corrupted his files, the only thing that would happen is that he'd waste that many bytes of physical data...
It might have other uses as well. Though for people who're heavily into graphics/multimedia or what have you, the space requirements might make it infeasible for such applications.
Disclaimer: Not much time to address this now, perhaps later tonight.
Central planning doesn't work? That'd be news to people in Russia whose economy even by capitalist standards (GDP, industrial output, etc...) has totally collapsed since "communism" has collapsed. Not to mention other indicators of life quality, like say life expectancy, suicide rate, etc... I don't understand how central planning failed when it built up a peasent economy into a superpower, launched the first sateliate into orbit, and produced a highly skilled and educated workforce. Just what are you measuring as economic success here? If you compare Russia to a country with equivalent population, resouces, industrial development like say Brazil in 1917 then Russia actually looks much better by comparison. It also fought two world wars to boot...
Actually, no. If you look at countries which have survived communism, they've typically done far worse than they would have been. No where is this more evident than in East Germany. Both East and West Germany had very similar demographics prior the entrance of Communism, but immediately after the fall of Communism, East Germany was a good 50 years behind, both economically, socially, and technologically. Or ummm, not quite as evenly, Hong Kong to its neighbooring China. Or Romania...I could go on. Russia produced very little in the way of technological innovation. In fact, they were so incapable and inefficient, that they even had to steal most of their military technology from the US. Their space program was the result of _huge_ expenditures, it was far from efficient, and can be regarded as an aberration, and it was quickly outdone by the US.
To compare the USSR to Brazil though is a major oversight. South America is too new and underdeveloped, and it is also poorly situated. Contrast this with Russia, which has tons of resources, neighboors Europe (the developed world), a pre-existing educated class, etc.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect instant results in Russia just because the laws allow for capitalism. There is more to a modern capitalist society than just the legal mechanisms. You need a society in which you can depend on certain things, such as your suppliers not cheating you, your shop not getting robbed, etc. The fact of the matter is that Russia was always a highly corrupt place, and communism only increased it. You combine the lack of the ability to trust even the police, and workforce that is too accustomed to Communism (read: highly inefficient and unproductive), and you're going to have real problems. Despite all the failings though of modern day Russia, it will likely improve, whereas Communist russia was living on borrowed time and borrowed money--it was bound to fail.
As for the rest of your arguments, I don't have time. Perhaps later tonight....
Well true, I'm not forgetting that by any means. I regard a "real" threat though, as being something more than just the ability to erase a few files on a few isolated individuals. For me, to be a "real" threat, it must be sufficiently viable to travel across the country for a couple generations, and must have the ability to set back a great number of users who employ reasonable generic countermeasures. For your information, I don't regard Norton antivirus, or what have you, as being particularly "reasonable" because it requires an extensive database and direct knowledge of each paticular virus.
If your primary concern is the destruction of documents, it would be a trivial matter to make a "secure backup" by simpling crontabbing a cp to copy all the users critical files to inaccessible parts of the file system (without any additional hardware. In fact, it might be kind of intriguing to create a "delta" filesystem, where the user can recover/mirror any changes made to defined parts of his filesystem (maybe virtual fs) in, say, 10 minute intervals. So if I were to erase or corrupt all documents, i could just step back 10 minutes or up to, say, 20 days, and recover trivially...maybe my next project). Additionally, most of these dos viruses even don't go straight for the documents, they go after crucial system binaries, the MBR, you name it...which have the same effect, with only a few lines of code. Furthermore, in order for the virus hurt Joe Schmoe Linux user with any real likelyhood, it needs the ability to propogate itself; the file system and the general design of Unix makes this task require something more than just basic skills with ASM, VBA, or what have you. In other words, unlike windows systems, the hax0r needs to be somewhat innovative (assuming the vendors/distros start paying real attention to security issues) at the very least to create a viable virus, and particularly to sustain that threat.
The file system, while not perfect, does complicate things significantly. The hax0r, to do real damage, must find some way to get his code executed as root. This means he must:
a) Convince the user to run his stuff as root. - This of course will not work against most intelligent people - If, and when, such viruses start emerging, the current Linux using populous can be educated about this.
b) Have the user unknowingly run an exploit (to get root privs) plus virus code. - The problem with this, though clearly possible, is that, in order to gain huge distribution, it needs a relative stable set of exploits. Most known exploits do get patched relatively quickly, just many current users are sufficiently dilligent to apply them. Here again, a linux virus/hacking epidemic would get most users act in order. Things such as automated patch retrievals/installation (or, at the very least, email) could also be implimented. Furthermore, this revolves more around the stupidity of the vendors (read: distributions) than it does the actual design flaw. I might be alone, but I think the vast majority of these exploits could have been prevented if they really put any effort into security. The bottom line is: Instead of trying to 'detect' and 'fight' each viruses individually, you attack their points of entry directly (knocking out hundreds of would-be viruses for each buggy program you shutdown)
c) Have the user run non-root code, which actually trojans password entering programs, and wraps the IO to the real program, while trapping the input. For example, create own su program in ~bin/, change PATH precedence such that ~bin/ proceeds the real su's path (e.g.,/sbin,/usr/sbin, etc) Wait till user runs 'su -'
- Possible, and much harder to prevent. But this depends on the user acting in a certain way.
Furthermore, the very nature of the Linux community poses a real obstacle to any viruses success. Whether or not people admit it, Microsoft plays a large contributing role in the success of its many viruses. Where Microsoft is unresponsive to most security problems, the linux community is very responsive. A published virus is likely to result, in a detailed plan of action against future attacks -- Microsoft simply isn't interested in this unless it can be proven that it'd hurt or help their bottom line significantly. Right now, to the best of my knowledge, most common windows exploits either come in shareware type programs (downloaded from some random site on the internet, or from a friend) or they're macroviruses (totally not an issue for linux yet). Linux, of course, is all about sharing software over the internet, as a result programs and code tend to recieve a considerable amount of scrutiny, even if only from 1% of the users (especially if primarly distributed as source). These users, can, and do, in turn, make a stink if something looks foul, making it unlikely to get archived on official sites and what not.
In conclusion, I don't have the time to analyze each and every difference between Linux and Windows; however, the differences between them will make Linux a relatively virus free platform. That being said, I do believe a few linux viruses will emerge pretty soon. Perhaps one or two will really take off, but the rest will fail. After that, the community and vendors at large will mend their ways, and stem the "reproduction" of viruses down to negligible levels.
Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system.
Yes, it failed. The reasons for its failure, however, extend far beyond just corruption and greed. Despite popular opinion, your entire communist country could be composed of people who're every bit as benevolent as mother theresa, and you'd still fail. The reason is quite simple: Central Planning doesn't work. No matter how nice the people in power (nor, for the matter, the workers) are, it doesn't mean they're going to (or capable of, even) allocating resources half efficiently.
While I'm on the subject, to this day I can show you probably hundreds of millions (billions?) of people around the world who would certainly disagree with capitalism, and embrace socialism or even communism. I guess my point is, the whole communist witchhunt thing was (and still is to an extent) unfair and that capitalism is not perfect either.
You might very well find some who romanticise Communism. However, they're generally outsiders who don't know diddly about economics, and less yet about history (read: the actual realities of communism). I've known a few people who've survived communism, and damn few have happy tales to tell, from both inside and outside the US (including IN some of those ex-communist countries). Thousands lost their lives trying to flee countries like this, how many truely capitalist/republic-democratic nations have this hanging on them? Furthermore, have you ever travelled to any one of these communist countries? Virtually everyone I know, including myself, has been struck by one thing, the utter lack of vitality. Yes, they're poor, everyone knows this, but that can't be it. You don't see the same thing in Mexico, India, or other even poorer societies. Nor can the argument be made that it's just the cultures, that it'd be the same without communism. But witness East/West Berlin, there was (and still is to some extent) a night and day difference. In other words, there is something about communism that sucks the life right out of a society, and it ain't just economic failure!
I guess my point is, the whole communist witchhunt thing was (and still is to an extent) unfair and that capitalism is not perfect either.
The "witchhunt", although "bad", was not just a figment of McCarthy's imagination. There is TONS of evidence (read more FOIA documents if you dont believe me, or KGB interviews, etc) the KGB setting up shop in the US, with the intent to disrupt the US economy, and many other things. They did, in fact, have a massive number of important people in their pockets, spies, informers, etc. McCarthy represented a very real fear, and not totally unconfirmed fear either. Congress, the FBI, etc, had evidence then, which the general public is just beginning to some of it lately (from sources such as FOIA, ex-kgb, etc). McCarthy, despite his abuses, was, atleast in part, allowed as much slack as he was, because of the danger.
That being said, McCarthy was wrong, he went too far, by trampling on far too many innocent lives, and violating certain constitutional rights. But in the desire to smear McCarthy, you're doing no one, other than perhaps card carrying communists, any favors by forgetting (or ignoring) these simple facts. The bottom line: McCarthy was more than just a product of some minor (or even major) distrust of Communist/Socialist philosophy, it was fear of the USSR--don't confuse the two.
Also, remember: The mere fact, that, there is SOME irrational fear of Communism, doesn't make it benign. There is very strong empirical evidence, and intellectual, economic, philosophical, etc. arguments against it.
His numbers might be off slightly, although not nearly as much as you think.
He hardly needs a "compelling" argument as to shipping costs, it's essentially irrelevant. What you seem to be implying is, that, because some Dot-Com has to contend with 30 (or ANY other number) dollars of shipping and handling, they should be given a break. Excuse me, but this, in any other context, would be called a subsidy. Under your apparent line of reasoning, a mall operation should be given a tax break over their discounted counterparts, because they inccur higher overhead costs due to their high end retail presence.
Businesses should operate based on the services (and/or products) and the efficiencies they can create, not because some politician (nor, for that matter, his constituents) think the internet is the best thing since sliced bread. If the internet is appropriate for that specific good or service, it will MORE than make up for whatever it has to cover in shipping and handling, without any artificial tax differentiation (read: where the consumer, in any given state, pays less on that specific good).
Furthermore, you are neglecting the various costs of traditional brick and mortar stores. In almost every existing field, BMs' overhead costs per item, exceed the shipping costs to domestic customers from Dot-Coms. Remember, that Dot-Coms are free to locate in whatever state they want, since most don't need to have actual operations in the states they're selling to (further reducing potential tax considerations of all sorts).
Tax rates and costs shouldn't play a significant issue in (Remember, it doesnt need to be absolutely 100% equitable in every single case...there will be some error, but such is life) choosing between buying a product online or at a retail store, should not be swayed significantly by any tax considerations (e.g., both the tax rate they're plied, at the costs associated with gathering, administrating, etc.) Despite the panicked pleas of some, this is not a huge burden on the DotCom, and even if it were, the rate could be adjusted to compensate. While it may be true that there are several thousand possible tax rates within the US alone, any reasonably compotent firm could handle such issues.
Despite popular opinion, not all mail order firms (e.g., firms that are located in some state and ship all their goods out directly to the customer, with little or no direct customer interaction) are tax exempt (perhaps just "true mail order" firms). I happen to know of a few, and they cope just fine. There are, in fact, services/software with keep track of all the tax rates for you, and they're easily integratable into software/databases. Furthermore, when, and if, DotComs have to pay tax rates like their competition, you can be sure that better services for tracking tax rates/districts will arrive. Also, the federal government could easily compile an official database of tax rates, zones, and methods for which all firms would be held exclusively accountable.
The "free tax collector" argument is similarly tired. Given the relative ease of collecting taxes (in the vast majority of cases), as demonstrated by other mail order firms, we're talking about mere fractions of a penny per transaction (if intergrated into CGIs and the like), maybe a penny or two to be generous. Few people today are swayed by such small change. But even if they were, it is still fair. Even though the DotCom may be loosing a penny, it's such a small price to pay when you stop and think about it. How do those goods get there? The customer's state's roads. Whose court will disputes likely arise in? The customers state. In the case of fraud or theft, who is going to give the thiefs chase? Most likely the customer's police. And those are just the DIRECT incremental costs involved in maintaining that type of commerce that I can think of.
You also have to consider the ASSOCIATED costs in maintaining a state with consumers capable of buying your products (e.g., education, courts, police, roads, bridges, airports, telecommunications, etc.). What happens to the tax revenues of truely boondock states where consumers start buying from out of state DotComs in record numbers? Sales tax accounts for roughly 30% of most states' revenues, something has to give, no matter how small some may think it is. But what does the DotCom care? All they're using are their roads, their police, and their courts. Maybe we can shave 5% off the budget of that state's education system, and only pay for roads that DotComs uses... As you can tell, the usage argument is ABSURD. Modern society simply can't operate like that. Like it or not, modern commerce depends on each and every state to facilate not only your particular transaction, but also the economy that allowed for that transaction.
In closing, my concern is less the "fairness" (for it's own sake), nor the changing revenues of particular states. Rather, economically speaking, there a strong argument against taxing the internet less (read: subsidy). Like all subsidies, it will lead to inefficiencies (these inefficiencies could also hurt the DotCom) in the long run. Anyhow, I've rambled on for long enough. I apologize if I've boxed you in, or put words in your mouth that you disagree with, but I tire of all the myopic statements on slashdot.
To begin, let me state that I hate MS, precisely because of their business practices (not to mention their mostly crappy/buggy/uninspired software) That being said, I would hardly call providing schools with relatively cheap, or even free, software unethical. They are not forcing the schools to make this decision. Microsoft is doing nothing that the competition can't do by offering it at a given price. If anything, more companies should do this. Furthermore, many already do (e.g., Sun, Borland, etc.). While it is true that these companies are doing it out of self interest, these companies are providing an additional option for the schools (and the students). How is giving cheap software away intrinsically bad? It isn't.
It is one thing if, because of their monopoly position, Microsoft were only to offer software this cheaply, in the short run, to price gouge up-and-coming competition, with the intent to raise them as soon as the threat is beat into submission. But, to the best of my knowledge, this is not the case.
In regards to the other practices you alluded to, those are very much unethical (not to mention illegal). Because MS flexes their monopoly power here, and is using it to leverage its way into new, or to preserve, existing markets, it is unethical. They are vastly different.
It's fine and good to expect something more from the US, but atleast be apprised as to the facts.
Undeniable fact of the matter is that most of our foreign competitors are FAR worse offenders. What you have to realize is that most foreign companies are run ENTIRELY different than the US. We, the United States, operate heavily on a market based system, where market valuation is the measure of success. Not true in almost every other country here, they operate on different systems. In Germany, for example, the board of directors wil commonly be comprised of bankers, unions, psuedo-government officials, and many other interests. The result of this creates a system where government plays a much much larger role. The two are very much intertwined. Furthermore, all this this results is much more static leadership. Meaning, that leadership is much more cozier with one another, and the government; if for no other reason then they've been in bed with each other since day one.
This is not true with the US. With the exception of certain government contractors (e.g., Hughes, Boeing, etc), the government is very much hands off. Leadership, though far from perfect, is far more dynamic. If you don't perform, you're going to get fired. If the board sucks, it's very likely they'll get taken over. All this, in turn, dramatically changes the relationship with other corporations and government.
The point of all this is not that US corporations are perfect, far from it. US corporations have their own very significant flaws, but let's not confuse the issues here. The corporate culture is very different, and consequently, the use and demand of such intelligence has got to be far lesser. For example, I would find it very hard to believe that a company such as J&J (not a large military government contractor) would be in bed with the CIA/NSA. Not true with many other similar large foreign corporations; there are thousands of documented cases of espionage. There is direct government interest in success of particular firms.
Though I can see the CIA supplying, say, Hughes with military/aerospace designs or knowledge, to insure that they have a fighting chance, I would very much differentiate the (the likes of Hughes and the likes of J&J and the thousands of other corporations). There is a much more direct government interest here. The government has a relatively direct interest in seeing that these aerospace firms are at the top of their game. Even though they're not directly government entities, such firms are responsible for building most warplanes, subs, etc. Given that, you can be sure, other nations' intelligence agencies are working against them, I think the CIA/NSA must do so in this case. (Not only is their a defense interest here, but they must level the playing field as foreign states are working directly against them)
That being said, I wouldn't be too suprised if some abuse of this occurred. Such as Boeing's civilian aircraft division profiting from intelligence work done for military purposes (though not actual military intelligence).
The bottom line: The US may abuse its intelligence facilities to some degree, but it's hardly pervasive. It is far far more common in other countries (e.g., France, Israel, Germany), whether or not your average slashdotter realizes it. I get tired of everyone jumping all over such things, when every country but the US has been known to do this for decades. Why haven't I seen similar outrage against France and company, before this?....
Well I live in PA (East Coast). What do you mean by 'no service'? Do you mean they're not requiring you to purchase this ISP plan deal? Or that circuit city (et. al) won't provide service at that price? I was curious about that myself. If, when you purchase one from circuit city, they also make you sign a contract to purchase the ISP service stuff, or something to that effect...
I just checked out their website. All three locations nearest me and their shipping location are out of stock. Not sure what to make of this, but I doubt they'd respond this quickly for NetAppliance.
Sure, these GNU tools are nice, and this is exactly the kind of area where open source works like a charm. However, I don't think they're on par with the likes of VMware, in terms of complexity, development time, and the like.
GNU tools outshine their propietary cousins precisely because there simply isn't a significant paying market for them (even though combined they're extremely usefull, few are going to go out and spend a great deal on money on individual tools (and they're certainly not going to upgrade on a regular basis)) None the less, the development on these particular tools was not rapid, nor was it particularly innovative. Quite the oppositite, in fact, these tools developed slowly, but continuously, absorbing many different points of flexibility as users modified them to fit their needs (an area which propietary products may never quite be able to hit). Most of these modifications were not ingenious by any means [nor were they the result of a SINGLE driving focus, like what is necessary to create products such as VMware]...Because they evolved so slowly, with so many interests in mind, they become highly versatile and very stable.
As it stands right now, you have two mostly distinct groups of software. The first group is rapidly evolving and highly complex projects. The second being, slower moving and smaller projects. Open source has yet to touch the first, but does very well in the second.
When, and if, the software industry ever slows down (e.g., fewer feature sets required, less bloat, Open Source efforts like this might become appropriate for an even wider array of applications and operating systems (e.g., the 'first' group). But until that time, I just don't think Open Source will ever keep pace in #1.
For all the talk about Open Source innovation and rapid development, I just don't see it. No matter how many times Open Source advocates will say otherwise, I've yet to see a single focused Open Source project even approach products such as VMWare. I mean come on! What _significant_ innovation has OSS produced? What quality products has OSS rapidly developed? (I don't mean products that just HAPPEN (now) to be Open source, I mean products that are driven by a truely "free", bazaar-like linux type development process.)
This is not to say that Open Source doesn't have some pluses, and I don't want to get into the specific reasons for OSS's failings, but please face reality!
The primary issue here is the DIFFERENCE between local merchants and internet merchants, other information is simply extraneous.
Sales taxes and property taxes pay for local services. I allready pay these. I pay for the services I use.
Huh? What is it exactly that you are arguing here? That you should only be required to collect sales tax for residents who live in your state? Or that you shouldn't have to collect any sales tax at all? It would seem as if you are leaning towards only collecting for in-state customers, but it is far from clear.
It costs me money to collect taxes. The other states get the value of an unpaid tax collector
I wasn't strictly arguing that you should collect for other states. I was advocating, that, at the very least you should treat all transactions as if they're in-state sales, and send all that money to your state--that would atleast put you on a more level playing field.
Furthermore, even if you had to collect for other states, the costs (if properly implimented) would be nominal, mere fractions of a penny per transaction. In this case, the federal government or some other federally recognized organization would be responsible for compiling a database of tax rates and issuing quarterly updates to all who need it. The Dot-Coms would only be held responsible for rates which correspond with the updates, not the "actual" rate of the locality at any given moment. I, and most other e-commerce sites, (atleast those who are half compotent) could intergrate these rates into their existing software quite easily.
The burdens put on local merchants under your scenario, far outweigh the burdens imposed in either of my scenarios (e.g., treat all sales as in-state, or apply the rate matching each customer's state) on e-commerce. In your scenario, the average dot-com is enabled to sell for much less (huge competetive advantage on certain items), while enjoying higher margins (assuming they're anywhere near as efficient), merely because some politicians (and people like yourself) happen play favorites (under the mistaken belief that the internet, in and of itself, is the best thing since sliced bread). In my latter example, when customer A, who lives in PA and has a choice between DotCom or BrickAndMortar (next door to the customer) on the same commodity item, both will have the same essentially the same tax rates and associated costs (proportionately, plus or minus a fraction of a penny). The decision will be based on who actually provides the best service and the lowest price (due to efficiencies, not tax considerations).
It ammounts to a tax placed on me for services that I can't use. When I collect taxes on my local sales the money my state saves pays for services that I use. When I am forced to spend my money to help pay for services in another state, I am being forced to subsidise those services.
This 'usage' argument is silly. Under the same reasoning, should I only have to pay 1/10 what everyone else pays to use the roads, because I only drive on a small fraction of them? Society simply can't operate remotely efficiently like this.
Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that you ARE using many out of state services, whether or not you realize it. For example, to merely complete the transaction (in an immediate) sense, you rely on: that state's roads to transport your goods, the police to keep your shipments safe, and many other things. Then you have the associated and secondary costs that are necessary to conduct business. Such as courts to resolve disputes or fraud in your sales and police to arrest criminals. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, you must not forget that YOU benefit from OTHER states prosperity. In order to maintain a strong economy, that state needs a strong highway system, schools, hospitals, courts, police & fire protection, telephone companies, a prison system (to lock the criminals up), and many other things. These cost the state money, which means they need tax revenue. Given that sales tax comprise roughly 30% of most states revenues, and that internet sales could theoretically (huge emphasis) eat most these sales up, something must give.
Slashdot Mirror
The person with whom I was discussing did not dispute the validity of IP itself. He simply had an inconsistent view, in that he effectively claimed to be concerned about the property rights of the artist, but failed to recognize artist's right to sell it, or the purchaser's right to price it however they please. Because reducing the right to transfer property reduces the rights to property itself, it is inconsistent with arguing for the artist property rights. I called him on this. End of story.
It is not necessary for me to attempt to "prove" undisputed facts. What you are asking of me would be equivalent to my demanding that you "prove" the morality of ownership, when, in fact, you are only debating someone else about how you should be allowed to transfer it.
You, at once, manage to over- and under-simply matters. Just as the notion of property interferes with the right of any man to do as he pleases, whenever he pleases, so do all human laws. However, it is highly myopic to think the only area of differentiation is the degree in which they interfere with the exercise of free will. The most important, though far from the only, distinction is in fact their morality--not the degree to which it retrains free will.
To quote MLK Jr:
Proceeding by this definition, slavery is clearly unjust, by pitting the majority against the minority it undebatably detracts from society as a whole. Contrast this with the utilitarian ends attained by the legal recognition of property. Though far from perfectly equitable, it furthers the greater good. One need look no further than the now defunct USSR (amongst others) to see what the results of the alternative is. Because the legal institution of property (in a general sense, not every instance of property) furthers the greater good, it 'uplifts the human personality', and thus is moral.
If you accept that the artist would not have produced that work at all were it not for IP, it is hard to assert that IP is hurting you in this instance. Simply put, you would never have an exact digital copy (read: mp3) like that, if the artist had not created it; the odds of someone recreating an exact copy on their own (read: without the artist writing/singing etc) are astronomically low, which is, in fact, the topic here.
This is a typical ploy of extremists (though some, apparently, legitimately lack the ability to make such basic distinctions), put words in the person's mouth or make absurd comparisons. It is more of a scare tactic than anything else. Not only that, but you are comparing apples to oranges. As I've already mentioned, intellectual property, unlike slavery, is moral, and it is law (not to mention very positive effects on the aggregate), thus it should be obeyed.
No, it is nothing like slavery. Slaves do not have a choice in the matter. All artists do have a choice, even if they sign stupid contracts, sell the rights, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that artists still choose to sign with the top labels of their own freewill, despite the presence of "indy" this and "indy" that. They still find it more advantageous to get "raped" (as you would put it) by industry, then go it alone. Put simly, this means that the labels are offering the artist something of greater value (e.g., promotion, marketing, distribution, mixing, etc.), even if you personally (as a consumer) don't appreciate or benefit from it.
The word is 'intellectual property' for a reason. Once you have it, it's yours, like more tangible property. Amongst these rights, is the right to sell it. If you don't recognize the right of the artist to transfer full ownership (including the right to price it however they want), then you're denying the artists' rights.
Well, I certainly won't pull out a calculator and compute it (normally atleast).
Yes, I generally agree with that. Though I don't know about always. As I mentioned before, these services all depend on a certain amount of centralization, and can always be shutdown directly. Furthermore, as a system administrator, I needn't stop all the geeks in the world from getting mp3s (although if the community is that sparse, it rapidly losses its music selection), all I would need to do is adapt the network often enough such that the majority of would-be napster clone users have to relearn and reconfigure frequently.
I disagree. The masses can be, and will be effectively stopped. The few who break through with ease can be written off.
In any case, time will tell. If and when this puts a real hurt to the music industry, they'll start coming after these servers with a vengence, and Joe Schmoe won't have his trivial mp3 downloads.
You're missing my point. Yes, you can break the law, I really don't care to discuss the ethics here at this point. What I will say, however, is that the industry can effectively stiffle the ability of the average Joe (and even more skilled users, to a lesser degree) to get whatever song they want, quickly, cheaply, and without wasting a great deal of time. By changing a few variables (e.g., time it takes to find a given song, download speed, social stigma, etc.) which the industry has some influence over they can stop the vast majority of users most of the time. Legally pursing all of these highly effective indexing services (e.g., napster) themselves is one way. Another is to prevent broadband ISPs (including college campuses) from unwittingly hosting such services.
While it does depend somewhat on the person, everyone has their time/value treshhold. For example, if I valued my time at no less than 30 dollars an hour, I would most likely not participate in mp3 trading if it only returns 1 CD (which I would otherwise purchase) for every hour I invest in it. Thus shutting down napster and clones would stop me from downloading with any regularity (as opposed to opportunistic/scavenger mode). While it may be considerably lower for others, anyone who values their time at a mere dollar an hour (just about what it must be for the average IRC-mp3 trader) truely isn't likely to purchase a great number of CDs anyways, nor is the industry apt to give these types of traders much in the way of chase.
The fact of the matter is that Napster is the first method of trading mp3s in a way that is sufficiently convenient to allow for average (and even highly capable individuals such as myself) computer users to download mp3s. Being a long time mp3 user and one of the original founders of #mp3 (undernet, amongst others), I can tell you that IRC, FTP, HTTP, and other decentralized systems are highly flawed, too much so for the vast majority of mp3 users today. The problem with these services is that they're either merely providing indexing, or they're archiving. Archiving clearly exposes them to liability, and thus will never withstand an all out legal attack. Indexing (although likely not immune from litigation) is plagued with problems of broken links, full ftp servers, slow systems, etc.
In other words, given the nature of the internet (human nature, of course, being contained within), there IS a need for psuedo-centralization such as napster (indexing is definetly centralized, and mp3s are effectively centralized and assured in that the listing, downloading, uploading, etc is controlled by the software). Furthermore, any service/software which is sufficiently effective is apt to be sufficiently centralized to be held accountable and to be sued. I, also, highly doubt that services like napster will stand up in the legal system. Thus, I would not say it is "impossible" for artists/labels to effectively control their music.
Artists need some way to profit from their work. Even if only a small fraction goes to the artist, it's better than none. By freeloading you're doing nothing to encourage the production or distribution of "quality" music. While the system may be "unfair", and while you're free to disagree with it, it does not make intellectual property null and void. It exists for a reason, you, as a consumer, have a simple choice: Accept conditions and buy it, or not.
That being said, I'm (obviously) not completely innocent of downloading non-free mp3s myself. However, I've never attempted to justify outright freeloading in the name of "fairness" (nor anything else for that matter). Furthermore, I tend to restrict my mp3s downloads (or ripping) to CDs that I either already own (so I can listen to them exclusively at home on my computer plugged into my hi-fi--I find this the best way to browse and listen while doing computer work), or songs that I likely would never buy in a store (allows me to sample and discover songs, if I find something I really like, I will generally purchase it). In other words, on songs that I do not yet "own", mp3 enables me to listen to a diverse swath of music, which i'd _never_ buy if I had to purchase the CD on which each song belogs. Once i discover something I really like, I will buy it, for the sake of convenience if nothing else (so I can listen to it elsewhere besides my computer), and to get all the other songs (which even napster frequently lacks--one other reason to keep up enforcement).
None the less, intellectual property is intellectual property--I do not have a right to do so. They are perfectly entitled to make reasonable efforts to enforce their rights, especially since they can't trust the general public to go out and buy their CDs in a way that does not discourage future production.
Furthermore, I submit that making reasonable accomodation to the Linux community would benefit NetPliance:
There are many reasons to humor the "geek" community, these are just some of them. Yet I can think of no strong arguments against it. I would ask every "geek" who is interested in paying a reasonable price to email NetPliance, tell them you'd be willing to pay, and remind them that we are far from irrelevant.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much of a market realist. The fact of the matter is that good IT can save a company a great deal of money (not to mention boost earnings). My problem, however, is less a matter of the price being paid for IT, then it is simply utter lack of available talent. The talent that can usually be had by most companies is mediocre, and the price paid is steep. I certainly take issue with anyone who would say that IT talent simply isn't an issue, that it's being fabricated by companies so they can reduce their IT costs by bringing in help from the 3rd world. Clearly when one looks at the avg. IT salary since the growth of "tech" visas, it speaks very much contrary to this fact.
Furthermore, although I believe in paying what the market dictates, I don't necessarily believe this is ultimately healthy for the economy. While many large companies can afford to hire very expensive IT, most startup companies (except for some of these dotcoms rolling in VC money, but that's more of an abberation...) are being priced out by larger companies because they can not afford these kind of cash outflows. Simply put, this has adverse effects on the economy. It seems particularly silly when the US has a very backwards immigration and visa policy, that effectively only lets in nominal levels of skilled (or even semi-skilled) labor, but hundreds of thousands of unskilled people. I can think of many companies that are desperate for good IT, yet they just can't get it, even though there are millions of highly skilled IT people outside the US who're willing to work at rates they can afford. Simply put, these costs (but more importantly the shortage) are needlessly artificially high because of protectionist and backwards immigration laws.
The bottom line: If you see the great value of good IT and realize the rarity of it in corporate America, it's hard to argue economically that it would hurt our country to allow more (but not necessarily completely open) talented workers in.
No offense, but is english your second language?
When you say there isn't a "shortage of IT professionals", do you mean people who merely get paid to do the job, or do you mean competent people? The problem is that when you say you use the term "strictly" that would imply the later.
In any case, as you may or may not know, the market for IT employees in Philly is very tight (I, too, live in philly). Witness: rising salaries, employers willing to pay virtually anything for competent help, the plethora of weak certification courses, etc. In what other career can a high school dropout take some certification course and make 60k++ within a year?
While you are certainly right that (atleast if I read this much correctly) employers have a hard time finding competent IT employees, I disagree with the cause(s) and some of your other statements. Although I don't disagree that you'll find atleast 20 idiots for every half competent IT worker, the problems extend far beyond just being able to test it. I think there is a genuine shortage of talented IT workers. Truely excellent IT people stand out head and shoulders above the rest, if for no other reason than 1 good IT person is worth atleast 20 monkeys. Regardless of whatever their formal credentials are, recommendations and the like are highly telling. I happen to know many employers and headhunters, the word generally is: If you have talent, give him whatever he wants. Consequently, employers have a very difficult time finding new (not age) talent, because they're generally quickly devoured.
The bottom line: Most employers have to spend absurd sums of money to get decent IT. Because skilled workers are impossible to find, employers are forced to turn to monkeys. And because monkeys are so damn ineffective, it takes 20 times as many to do the same job. Which causes the market for monkeys to skyrocket as well....
...which of course leads to the need for platforms such as NT. Which, ultimately, leads to the need for more monkeys. Which causes even more employee (non-IT) downtime, which only adds to the cost....Any sane skilled/intelligent person, of course, avoids such environments...Which naturally makes the majority of the up and coming generation virtually braindead when it comes to IT....
...sorry to run on. =)
gotta run
I certainly don't think the bursting of the "internet bubble" will hurt either directly (e.g., not in sales). However, the PE ratios of many of these non-Dotcoms are extremely high. For example, Cisco was almost 200 last time I checked! Granted, they have significant growth opportunies and they're well run. Nonetheless, at 200 it's very questionable. I wouldn't be too suprised, if, when the dotcoms start turning bellyup, the market also "re-examines" the valuation of non dotcoms as well. Cisco might very well recieve extra-scrutiny, because of guilt by assocation.
Yes, Amazon is clearly another one of the white man's lies!
Bah humbug. I'm not going to say that there wasn't, nor isn't, significant stodginess amongst the wall street community. However, not every criticism of the so-called "new economy" is irrational or self-serving.
Ok, first point: The VC don't care about the ultimate sucess of these companies, atleast not in the short run. So long as the VCs can get in, and quadruple their money after the IPO in only a few short months, they're happy. The VCs, of course, depend on a highly receptive and irrational market, whether or not they recognize it.
Second point: Your example would only allow for the VC firm to break even--hardly a worthwhile investment. 10 companies by 10 million dollars equals 100m, if only one company suceeds and returns 100m, that's 100m in and 100m out. In other words, they've only broken even. Which, in a time-value of money point of view (not to mention inflation), is actually a loss. Because that 100 million dollars could have been invested in almost anything else, and returned significant profits.
Third point: The math doesn't work out like this in reality. As it stands right now in publically traded firms, almost every single DotCom IPO has been a winner. To criticize this is hardly irrational. The aggregate of the market capitalizations of all these Dot-Coms is impossibly high. They either would all have to grow at an impossibly high rate, or you accept something like your previously mentioned scenario, where one in ten does well enough to make up for the losses in the failures--the growth rate and/or profitability required for that is virtually impossible.
Amazon is overvalued. That is a problem for anyone who is invested in them. Once the market understands that they can't grow at anywhere near the rate implicitly (though not necessarily conciously) anticipated, their stock is going to fall hard. Furthermore, Amazon, like many of these DotComs, implicitly depends on the market being there for them when they need more cash. The drier the market becomes for them, the harder they're going to find it to raise capital, the more they dillute their stock, the poorer they perform (as a stock), the drier the market becomes, and so on. I predict these DotComs are going to go the way of the BioTech stocks of late eighties and early nineties, from redhot to untouchable in 0 seconds.
I would also remind you that what Amazon "could" do is irrelevant, what they do do is the only important question. If Amazon is overconfident of the market, and treats their cashflows accordingly, they may find themselves at a point of no return if the market dynamics change significantly.
At this point, Amazon is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. They can't possibly meet market expectations, and their stock has to come down no matter what management does. Amazon can either try to fulfill those growth prophesies (which they'll never meet anyways, and depending on the market to back them up when they need cash again), or they can cut their losses and try to attain profitability, at the expense of future growth. Either way, their stock is going to fall.
The bottom line: Amazon might succeed as a company, but that does not mean it is sane to invest in them at this point!
/* Put on Aspestos Suit */
/* Begin Gripe */
I hate to nitpick (especially on a casual discussion forum such as slashdot), but why must so many users on slashdot, such as yourself, frequently insist on using the adjective 'said' out of proper context? Granted this particular discussion has some legal orientation, but, in general, outside of legal documents and business contracts, the adjective 'said' is simply unnecessary. Worse yet, such language needlessly detracts from clarity and coherance. While I can understand typos, gramatical errors, and the like as a result of inattention and/or less than perfect education, the use of 'said' is obviously an intentional act, and I think most people should know better.
/* End Gripe */
/* Remove Aspestos Suit */
That being said, I basically agree with your statements, even though i'm far from a GPL/RMS cheerleader. If someone wants to design/build/code something, they're free to dictate its terms of use. You simply have a choice to use it or not use it. So long as that licensing/agreement/patent/copyright doesn't restrict you from indepedently developing something on your own (e.g., not conceptual patents, like the "one click" stuff), there isn't a defensible argument against it. This goes for both propietary and Open Source'ish licenses. Sure, you can bitch to the owners and try to get them to change it; baring that, create your own, make your own license, and shutup!
In other words, I'll defend GPL's right to preserve its integrity, just as I'll defend propietary products that don't want to Open Source, and I needn't agree with either specific application of it. So while "bitching" and attacking RMS's reasoning may be appropriate, forcibly breaking or weasiling around the license is not.
The better world is one where each license and school of thought is allowed to play itself out, rather than allowing either school (read: propietary or "open") to dictate to the other.
Well any sensible user is apt to have the applications installed (owned by) as root, or some other user. Thus, since you can't modify the application binaries (baring some kind of exploit), you couldn't have the application corrupt or encrypt the documents. The hax0r could, of course, write a program that just goes straight for the documents (though that would likely be quite ugly and detectable).
/home/fall/documents/ to /backup/documents/$date/ (root owned of course). In other words, whether the files are erased, corrupted, or encrypted is essentially irrelevant.
While I guess it is possible encrypt the documents, it doesn't make a great deal of advantages over erasing. I, a half intelligent user, could write a trivial crontab script (or for that matter just about any other backup scheme) that just backs up
In regards to my "delta" backup scheme (though most likely overkill), it is essentially foolproof within the confines of its design (e.g., unless root is attained and the HD itself is accessed). My initial mention, simply takes snap shots of all files in the defined filesystem (or rather virtual filesystem, as opposed to having to check part of an ext2 partition every other minute) on a given interval (though I could do it continously (e.g., on every write and erase)), and, with the intent to conserve space, only the DIFFERENCE [hence the word 'delta'] between the previous snapshot and the current snapshot would be physically saved. Most users' documents in a given year(or code, or what have you) are typically relatively small, and, I believe, that with my delta scheme even all the changes to the files over the course of, say, 90 days could be stored without a great deal more physical storage required. Thus, no matter what happens at the user level, the user always has the options of returning to the state of his filesystem up to 90 days before. In other words, if I have preexisting 'snapshots' of unmolested files, and the user (virus) encrypted/corrupted his files, the only thing that would happen is that he'd waste that many bytes of physical data...
It might have other uses as well. Though for people who're heavily into graphics/multimedia or what have you, the space requirements might make it infeasible for such applications.
Actually, no. If you look at countries which have survived communism, they've typically done far worse than they would have been. No where is this more evident than in East Germany. Both East and West Germany had very similar demographics prior the entrance of Communism, but immediately after the fall of Communism, East Germany was a good 50 years behind, both economically, socially, and technologically. Or ummm, not quite as evenly, Hong Kong to its neighbooring China. Or Romania...I could go on. Russia produced very little in the way of technological innovation. In fact, they were so incapable and inefficient, that they even had to steal most of their military technology from the US. Their space program was the result of _huge_ expenditures, it was far from efficient, and can be regarded as an aberration, and it was quickly outdone by the US.
To compare the USSR to Brazil though is a major oversight. South America is too new and underdeveloped, and it is also poorly situated. Contrast this with Russia, which has tons of resources, neighboors Europe (the developed world), a pre-existing educated class, etc.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect instant results in Russia just because the laws allow for capitalism. There is more to a modern capitalist society than just the legal mechanisms. You need a society in which you can depend on certain things, such as your suppliers not cheating you, your shop not getting robbed, etc. The fact of the matter is that Russia was always a highly corrupt place, and communism only increased it. You combine the lack of the ability to trust even the police, and workforce that is too accustomed to Communism (read: highly inefficient and unproductive), and you're going to have real problems. Despite all the failings though of modern day Russia, it will likely improve, whereas Communist russia was living on borrowed time and borrowed money--it was bound to fail.
As for the rest of your arguments, I don't have time. Perhaps later tonight....
Well true, I'm not forgetting that by any means. I regard a "real" threat though, as being something more than just the ability to erase a few files on a few isolated individuals. For me, to be a "real" threat, it must be sufficiently viable to travel across the country for a couple generations, and must have the ability to set back a great number of users who employ reasonable generic countermeasures. For your information, I don't regard Norton antivirus, or what have you, as being particularly "reasonable" because it requires an extensive database and direct knowledge of each paticular virus.
If your primary concern is the destruction of documents, it would be a trivial matter to make a "secure backup" by simpling crontabbing a cp to copy all the users critical files to inaccessible parts of the file system (without any additional hardware. In fact, it might be kind of intriguing to create a "delta" filesystem, where the user can recover/mirror any changes made to defined parts of his filesystem (maybe virtual fs) in, say, 10 minute intervals. So if I were to erase or corrupt all documents, i could just step back 10 minutes or up to, say, 20 days, and recover trivially...maybe my next project). Additionally, most of these dos viruses even don't go straight for the documents, they go after crucial system binaries, the MBR, you name it...which have the same effect, with only a few lines of code. Furthermore, in order for the virus hurt Joe Schmoe Linux user with any real likelyhood, it needs the ability to propogate itself; the file system and the general design of Unix makes this task require something more than just basic skills with ASM, VBA, or what have you. In other words, unlike windows systems, the hax0r needs to be somewhat innovative (assuming the vendors/distros start paying real attention to security issues) at the very least to create a viable virus, and particularly to sustain that threat.
Furthermore, the very nature of the Linux community poses a real obstacle to any viruses success. Whether or not people admit it, Microsoft plays a large contributing role in the success of its many viruses. Where Microsoft is unresponsive to most security problems, the linux community is very responsive. A published virus is likely to result, in a detailed plan of action against future attacks -- Microsoft simply isn't interested in this unless it can be proven that it'd hurt or help their bottom line significantly. Right now, to the best of my knowledge, most common windows exploits either come in shareware type programs (downloaded from some random site on the internet, or from a friend) or they're macroviruses (totally not an issue for linux yet). Linux, of course, is all about sharing software over the internet, as a result programs and code tend to recieve a considerable amount of scrutiny, even if only from 1% of the users (especially if primarly distributed as source). These users, can, and do, in turn, make a stink if something looks foul, making it unlikely to get archived on official sites and what not.
In conclusion, I don't have the time to analyze each and every difference between Linux and Windows; however, the differences between them will make Linux a relatively virus free platform. That being said, I do believe a few linux viruses will emerge pretty soon. Perhaps one or two will really take off, but the rest will fail. After that, the community and vendors at large will mend their ways, and stem the "reproduction" of viruses down to negligible levels.
Yes, it failed. The reasons for its failure, however, extend far beyond just corruption and greed. Despite popular opinion, your entire communist country could be composed of people who're every bit as benevolent as mother theresa, and you'd still fail. The reason is quite simple: Central Planning doesn't work. No matter how nice the people in power (nor, for the matter, the workers) are, it doesn't mean they're going to (or capable of, even) allocating resources half efficiently.
You might very well find some who romanticise Communism. However, they're generally outsiders who don't know diddly about economics, and less yet about history (read: the actual realities of communism). I've known a few people who've survived communism, and damn few have happy tales to tell, from both inside and outside the US (including IN some of those ex-communist countries). Thousands lost their lives trying to flee countries like this, how many truely capitalist/republic-democratic nations have this hanging on them? Furthermore, have you ever travelled to any one of these communist countries? Virtually everyone I know, including myself, has been struck by one thing, the utter lack of vitality. Yes, they're poor, everyone knows this, but that can't be it. You don't see the same thing in Mexico, India, or other even poorer societies. Nor can the argument be made that it's just the cultures, that it'd be the same without communism. But witness East/West Berlin, there was (and still is to some extent) a night and day difference. In other words, there is something about communism that sucks the life right out of a society, and it ain't just economic failure!
The "witchhunt", although "bad", was not just a figment of McCarthy's imagination. There is TONS of evidence (read more FOIA documents if you dont believe me, or KGB interviews, etc) the KGB setting up shop in the US, with the intent to disrupt the US economy, and many other things. They did, in fact, have a massive number of important people in their pockets, spies, informers, etc. McCarthy represented a very real fear, and not totally unconfirmed fear either. Congress, the FBI, etc, had evidence then, which the general public is just beginning to some of it lately (from sources such as FOIA, ex-kgb, etc). McCarthy, despite his abuses, was, atleast in part, allowed as much slack as he was, because of the danger.
That being said, McCarthy was wrong, he went too far, by trampling on far too many innocent lives, and violating certain constitutional rights. But in the desire to smear McCarthy, you're doing no one, other than perhaps card carrying communists, any favors by forgetting (or ignoring) these simple facts. The bottom line: McCarthy was more than just a product of some minor (or even major) distrust of Communist/Socialist philosophy, it was fear of the USSR--don't confuse the two.
Also, remember: The mere fact, that, there is SOME irrational fear of Communism, doesn't make it benign. There is very strong empirical evidence, and intellectual, economic, philosophical, etc. arguments against it.
His numbers might be off slightly, although not nearly as much as you think.
He hardly needs a "compelling" argument as to shipping costs, it's essentially irrelevant. What you seem to be implying is, that, because some Dot-Com has to contend with 30 (or ANY other number) dollars of shipping and handling, they should be given a break. Excuse me, but this, in any other context, would be called a subsidy. Under your apparent line of reasoning, a mall operation should be given a tax break over their discounted counterparts, because they inccur higher overhead costs due to their high end retail presence.
Businesses should operate based on the services (and/or products) and the efficiencies they can create, not because some politician (nor, for that matter, his constituents) think the internet is the best thing since sliced bread. If the internet is appropriate for that specific good or service, it will MORE than make up for whatever it has to cover in shipping and handling, without any artificial tax differentiation (read: where the consumer, in any given state, pays less on that specific good).
Furthermore, you are neglecting the various costs of traditional brick and mortar stores. In almost every existing field, BMs' overhead costs per item, exceed the shipping costs to domestic customers from Dot-Coms. Remember, that Dot-Coms are free to locate in whatever state they want, since most don't need to have actual operations in the states they're selling to (further reducing potential tax considerations of all sorts).
Tax rates and costs shouldn't play a significant issue in (Remember, it doesnt need to be absolutely 100% equitable in every single case...there will be some error, but such is life) choosing between buying a product online or at a retail store, should not be swayed significantly by any tax considerations (e.g., both the tax rate they're plied, at the costs associated with gathering, administrating, etc.) Despite the panicked pleas of some, this is not a huge burden on the DotCom, and even if it were, the rate could be adjusted to compensate. While it may be true that there are several thousand possible tax rates within the US alone, any reasonably compotent firm could handle such issues.
Despite popular opinion, not all mail order firms (e.g., firms that are located in some state and ship all their goods out directly to the customer, with little or no direct customer interaction) are tax exempt (perhaps just "true mail order" firms). I happen to know of a few, and they cope just fine. There are, in fact, services/software with keep track of all the tax rates for you, and they're easily integratable into software/databases. Furthermore, when, and if, DotComs have to pay tax rates like their competition, you can be sure that better services for tracking tax rates/districts will arrive. Also, the federal government could easily compile an official database of tax rates, zones, and methods for which all firms would be held exclusively accountable.
The "free tax collector" argument is similarly tired. Given the relative ease of collecting taxes (in the vast majority of cases), as demonstrated by other mail order firms, we're talking about mere fractions of a penny per transaction (if intergrated into CGIs and the like), maybe a penny or two to be generous. Few people today are swayed by such small change. But even if they were, it is still fair. Even though the DotCom may be loosing a penny, it's such a small price to pay when you stop and think about it. How do those goods get there? The customer's state's roads. Whose court will disputes likely arise in? The customers state. In the case of fraud or theft, who is going to give the thiefs chase? Most likely the customer's police. And those are just the DIRECT incremental costs involved in maintaining that type of commerce that I can think of.
You also have to consider the ASSOCIATED costs in maintaining a state with consumers capable of buying your products (e.g., education, courts, police, roads, bridges, airports, telecommunications, etc.). What happens to the tax revenues of truely boondock states where consumers start buying from out of state DotComs in record numbers? Sales tax accounts for roughly 30% of most states' revenues, something has to give, no matter how small some may think it is. But what does the DotCom care? All they're using are their roads, their police, and their courts. Maybe we can shave 5% off the budget of that state's education system, and only pay for roads that DotComs uses... As you can tell, the usage argument is ABSURD. Modern society simply can't operate like that. Like it or not, modern commerce depends on each and every state to facilate not only your particular transaction, but also the economy that allowed for that transaction.
In closing, my concern is less the "fairness" (for it's own sake), nor the changing revenues of particular states. Rather, economically speaking, there a strong argument against taxing the internet less (read: subsidy). Like all subsidies, it will lead to inefficiencies (these inefficiencies could also hurt the DotCom) in the long run. Anyhow, I've rambled on for long enough. I apologize if I've boxed you in, or put words in your mouth that you disagree with, but I tire of all the myopic statements on slashdot.
To begin, let me state that I hate MS, precisely because of their business practices (not to mention their mostly crappy/buggy/uninspired software) That being said, I would hardly call providing schools with relatively cheap, or even free, software unethical. They are not forcing the schools to make this decision. Microsoft is doing nothing that the competition can't do by offering it at a given price. If anything, more companies should do this. Furthermore, many already do (e.g., Sun, Borland, etc.). While it is true that these companies are doing it out of self interest, these companies are providing an additional option for the schools (and the students). How is giving cheap software away intrinsically bad? It isn't.
It is one thing if, because of their monopoly position, Microsoft were only to offer software this cheaply, in the short run, to price gouge up-and-coming competition, with the intent to raise them as soon as the threat is beat into submission. But, to the best of my knowledge, this is not the case.
In regards to the other practices you alluded to, those are very much unethical (not to mention illegal). Because MS flexes their monopoly power here, and is using it to leverage its way into new, or to preserve, existing markets, it is unethical. They are vastly different.
It's fine and good to expect something more from the US, but atleast be apprised as to the facts.
Undeniable fact of the matter is that most of our foreign competitors are FAR worse offenders. What you have to realize is that most foreign companies are run ENTIRELY different than the US. We, the United States, operate heavily on a market based system, where market valuation is the measure of success. Not true in almost every other country here, they operate on different systems. In Germany, for example, the board of directors wil commonly be comprised of bankers, unions, psuedo-government officials, and many other interests. The result of this creates a system where government plays a much much larger role. The two are very much intertwined. Furthermore, all this this results is much more static leadership. Meaning, that leadership is much more cozier with one another, and the government; if for no other reason then they've been in bed with each other since day one.
This is not true with the US. With the exception of certain government contractors (e.g., Hughes, Boeing, etc), the government is very much hands off. Leadership, though far from perfect, is far more dynamic. If you don't perform, you're going to get fired. If the board sucks, it's very likely they'll get taken over. All this, in turn, dramatically changes the relationship with other corporations and government.
The point of all this is not that US corporations are perfect, far from it. US corporations have their own very significant flaws, but let's not confuse the issues here. The corporate culture is very different, and consequently, the use and demand of such intelligence has got to be far lesser. For example, I would find it very hard to believe that a company such as J&J (not a large military government contractor) would be in bed with the CIA/NSA. Not true with many other similar large foreign corporations; there are thousands of documented cases of espionage. There is direct government interest in success of particular firms.
Though I can see the CIA supplying, say, Hughes with military/aerospace designs or knowledge, to insure that they have a fighting chance, I would very much differentiate the (the likes of Hughes and the likes of J&J and the thousands of other corporations). There is a much more direct government interest here. The government has a relatively direct interest in seeing that these aerospace firms are at the top of their game. Even though they're not directly government entities, such firms are responsible for building most warplanes, subs, etc. Given that, you can be sure, other nations' intelligence agencies are working against them, I think the CIA/NSA must do so in this case. (Not only is their a defense interest here, but they must level the playing field as foreign states are working directly against them)
That being said, I wouldn't be too suprised if some abuse of this occurred. Such as Boeing's civilian aircraft division profiting from intelligence work done for military purposes (though not actual military intelligence).
The bottom line: The US may abuse its intelligence facilities to some degree, but it's hardly pervasive. It is far far more common in other countries (e.g., France, Israel, Germany), whether or not your average slashdotter realizes it. I get tired of everyone jumping all over such things, when every country but the US has been known to do this for decades. Why haven't I seen similar outrage against France and company, before this?....
Well I live in PA (East Coast). What do you mean by 'no service'? Do you mean they're not requiring you to purchase this ISP plan deal? Or that circuit city (et. al) won't provide service at that price? I was curious about that myself. If, when you purchase one from circuit city, they also make you sign a contract to purchase the ISP service stuff, or something to that effect...
I just checked out their website. All three locations nearest me and their shipping location are out of stock. Not sure what to make of this, but I doubt they'd respond this quickly for NetAppliance.
Sure, these GNU tools are nice, and this is exactly the kind of area where open source works like a charm. However, I don't think they're on par with the likes of VMware, in terms of complexity, development time, and the like.
GNU tools outshine their propietary cousins precisely because there simply isn't a significant paying market for them (even though combined they're extremely usefull, few are going to go out and spend a great deal on money on individual tools (and they're certainly not going to upgrade on a regular basis)) None the less, the development on these particular tools was not rapid, nor was it particularly innovative. Quite the oppositite, in fact, these tools developed slowly, but continuously, absorbing many different points of flexibility as users modified them to fit their needs (an area which propietary products may never quite be able to hit). Most of these modifications were not ingenious by any means [nor were they the result of a SINGLE driving focus, like what is necessary to create products such as VMware]...Because they evolved so slowly, with so many interests in mind, they become highly versatile and very stable.
As it stands right now, you have two mostly distinct groups of software. The first group is rapidly evolving and highly complex projects. The second being, slower moving and smaller projects. Open source has yet to touch the first, but does very well in the second.
When, and if, the software industry ever slows down (e.g., fewer feature sets required, less bloat, Open Source efforts like this might become appropriate for an even wider array of applications and operating systems (e.g., the 'first' group). But until that time, I just don't think Open Source will ever keep pace in #1.
For all the talk about Open Source innovation and rapid development, I just don't see it. No matter how many times Open Source advocates will say otherwise, I've yet to see a single focused Open Source project even approach products such as VMWare. I mean come on! What _significant_ innovation has OSS produced? What quality products has OSS rapidly developed? (I don't mean products that just HAPPEN (now) to be Open source, I mean products that are driven by a truely "free", bazaar-like linux type development process.)
This is not to say that Open Source doesn't have some pluses, and I don't want to get into the specific reasons for OSS's failings, but please face reality!
Huh? What is it exactly that you are arguing here? That you should only be required to collect sales tax for residents who live in your state? Or that you shouldn't have to collect any sales tax at all? It would seem as if you are leaning towards only collecting for in-state customers, but it is far from clear.
I wasn't strictly arguing that you should collect for other states. I was advocating, that, at the very least you should treat all transactions as if they're in-state sales, and send all that money to your state--that would atleast put you on a more level playing field.
Furthermore, even if you had to collect for other states, the costs (if properly implimented) would be nominal, mere fractions of a penny per transaction. In this case, the federal government or some other federally recognized organization would be responsible for compiling a database of tax rates and issuing quarterly updates to all who need it. The Dot-Coms would only be held responsible for rates which correspond with the updates, not the "actual" rate of the locality at any given moment. I, and most other e-commerce sites, (atleast those who are half compotent) could intergrate these rates into their existing software quite easily.
The burdens put on local merchants under your scenario, far outweigh the burdens imposed in either of my scenarios (e.g., treat all sales as in-state, or apply the rate matching each customer's state) on e-commerce. In your scenario, the average dot-com is enabled to sell for much less (huge competetive advantage on certain items), while enjoying higher margins (assuming they're anywhere near as efficient), merely because some politicians (and people like yourself) happen play favorites (under the mistaken belief that the internet, in and of itself, is the best thing since sliced bread). In my latter example, when customer A, who lives in PA and has a choice between DotCom or BrickAndMortar (next door to the customer) on the same commodity item, both will have the same essentially the same tax rates and associated costs (proportionately, plus or minus a fraction of a penny). The decision will be based on who actually provides the best service and the lowest price (due to efficiencies, not tax considerations).
This 'usage' argument is silly. Under the same reasoning, should I only have to pay 1/10 what everyone else pays to use the roads, because I only drive on a small fraction of them? Society simply can't operate remotely efficiently like this.
Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that you ARE using many out of state services, whether or not you realize it. For example, to merely complete the transaction (in an immediate) sense, you rely on: that state's roads to transport your goods, the police to keep your shipments safe, and many other things. Then you have the associated and secondary costs that are necessary to conduct business. Such as courts to resolve disputes or fraud in your sales and police to arrest criminals. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, you must not forget that YOU benefit from OTHER states prosperity. In order to maintain a strong economy, that state needs a strong highway system, schools, hospitals, courts, police & fire protection, telephone companies, a prison system (to lock the criminals up), and many other things. These cost the state money, which means they need tax revenue. Given that sales tax comprise roughly 30% of most states revenues, and that internet sales could theoretically (huge emphasis) eat most these sales up, something must give.